European Arrest Warrant

Further to the Written Answer by Lord Rooker on 28 November (WA 35), whether at the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 6 to 7 December in Brussels they will attempt to include "public denial or trivialisation of crimes committed by communist regimes" as an offence under Article 2 of the Framework Decision on the proposed European Union Arrest Warrant; and, if not, why not.
[HL1782]

No. The list of offences at Draft Article 2 of the framework decision are in the main "harmonised" offences. There are no common EU definitions, but all member states have criminal offences under the generic headings.

Further to the Written Answer by Lord Rooker on 28 November (WA 35), how they define the crimes of (a) "swindling" and (b) "forgery of administrative documents and trafficking therein", as identified in Article 2 of the Framework Decision on the proposed European Union arrest warrant. [HL1783]

Offences will be defined by the issuing member state. Depending on the circumstances, if issued by a judicial authority in the United Kingdom, "swindling" would include any offence under the Theft Acts 1968 and 1978, and "forgery of administrative documents and trafficking therein" would include any offence under the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981.

Whether, under the proposed European Union arrest warrant, the British plane spotters detained in Greece would be extradited for interrogation and trial in that country had they returned to the United Kingdom prior to arrest. [HL1784]

The Government cannot speculate on the possible outcome of an extradition request that has not been made. The draft framework decision has not been brought into force.

If a European arrest warrant had been issued by a judicial authority in a European Union member state for the offence of espionage, that would have fallen within the scope of the draft framework decision. This is also an offence carrying a sentence of more than 12 months in United Kingdom law. Although the draft framework decision proposes removing the dual criminality test from a number of serious offences and making it optional for other offences, the retention of the dual criminality test would not be a barrier to extradition for espionage. The draft framework decision does not provide for any person subject to its provisions to be interrogated. It follows the standard provisions of extradition instruments, which provide for the handing over of persons either suspected or convicted of extraditable offences solely for the purposes of trial and/or imprisonment. Requests for the taking of evidence are dealt with under separate instruments.